From: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Mahendra Singh Thalor <mahi6run(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, tushar <tushar(dot)ahuja(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Vacuum o/p with (full 1, parallel 0) option throwing an error |
Date: | 2020-04-10 13:35:32 |
Message-ID: | 20200410133532.GA2228@telsasoft.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 10:34:02AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 2:03 PM Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 05:07:48PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > Yes but the difference is that we cannot disable PARSER or COPY by
> > > specifying options whereas we can do something like "VACUUM (FULL
> > > false) tbl" to disable FULL option. I might be misunderstanding the
> > > meaning of "specify" though.
> >
> > You have it right.
> >
> > We should fix the behavior, but change the error message for consistency with
> > that change, like so.
> >
>
> Okay, but I think the error message suggested by Robert "ERROR: VACUUM
> FULL cannot be performed in parallel" sounds better than what you have
> proposed. What do you think?
No problem. I think I was trying to make my text similar to that from
14a4f6f37.
I realized that I didn't sq!uash my last patch, so it didn't include the
functional change (which is maybe what Robert was referring to).
--
Justin
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v3-0001-Allow-specifying-parallel-0-with-vacuum-full.patch | text/x-diff | 4.1 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2020-04-10 13:46:44 | Re: doc review for parallel vacuum |
Previous Message | Jeremy Morton | 2020-04-10 13:19:09 | Re: Support for DATETIMEOFFSET |